Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SaintPeter

NATO war crimes in Zliten

Recommended Posts


SaintPeter, I'm awaiting the day you actually own up to reality and at least ACKNOWLEDGE that Gadhaffi is the bad guy, and he's done far worse than NATO. Accidentally killing civilians is not a war crime. Waging war on your own people is.

I'm also awaiting the day you actually man up and RESPOND to the posts on your threads instead of just blindly posting more and more of the bullcrap propaganda that you've been swallowing like baby food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaintPeter, I'm awaiting the day you actually own up to reality and at least ACKNOWLEDGE that Gadhaffi is the bad guy, and he's done far worse than NATO. Accidentally killing civilians is not a war crime. Waging war on your own people is.

I'm also awaiting the day you actually man up and RESPOND to the posts on your threads instead of just blindly posting more and more the bullcrap propaganda that you've been swallowing like baby food.

oh I know he has done some aweful stuff in his lifetime, who hasnt? who wouldn't fight back when someone is threatening you? reason why he is waging war on some of the Libyan people is because they don't like him yet there are a lot of people that do like him. Granted I know some of this is propaganda and it is anti-NATO stuff, but I am just looking at this from a different view point. there are some things that I feel is fishy. Like when this war in Libya broke out I was on the side of the rebels but I started wondering why we are handling things in Libya more then any other middle east/north african countries that have broken out in war? why are we more involve with Libya then any other countries that broke off into revolt? Why arent we helping Syria instead of just condemning the leaders actions? sometimes I don't respond because I don't know how to respond. a lot of times i sound stupid when explaining myself so i just stop. i know its probably not a great idea, but sometimes I just sit here trying to word my wording and after a while im like screw it.... this took me like ten minutes trying to think what I want to type. a few times I felt like just stopping but I need to try and explain why I dont respond some of the times. other times I just post articles just to post, just so you guys can read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh I know he has done some aweful stuff in his lifetime, who hasnt? who wouldn't fight back when someone is threatening you? reason why he is waging war on some of the Libyan people is because they don't like him yet there are a lot of people that do like him. Granted I know some of this is propaganda and it is anti-NATO stuff, but I am just looking at this from a different view point. there are some things that I feel is fishy. Like when this war in Libya broke out I was on the side of the rebels but I started wondering why we are handling things in Libya more then any other middle east/north african countries that have broken out in war? why are we more involve with Libya then any other countries that broke off into revolt? Why arent we helping Syria instead of just condemning the leaders actions? sometimes I don't respond because I don't know how to respond. a lot of times i sound stupid when explaining myself so i just stop. i know its probably not a great idea, but sometimes I just sit here trying to word my wording and after a while im like screw it.... this took me like ten minutes trying to think what I want to type. a few times I felt like just stopping but I need to try and explain why I dont respond some of the times. other times I just post articles just to post, just so you guys can read.

Why are we more involved in Libya? 1) Because we have interests there. That is no secret. Everyone knows it, and the government has acknowledged it. We can't spend time everywhere. 2) The situation in Libya was far worse than any other country. With the exception of now Syria, no other nation was as harsh and cruel against their own people. We gave them plenty of time to stand down, but they refused, so intervened by aiding the rebels who were doing nothing but defending their own countrymen. What Syria is doing right now is wrong, but you have to remember how it took AGES for us to actually get involved with Libya, and naturally it's going to take equally long if we decide to get involved with Syria (possibly longer, if we've actually learned anything from this experience).

Regardless of your thoughts of NATO's motives however, you should still be on the side of the rebels. So what if there are people who support Gadhaffi? Germans supported Hitler! An evil man is still evil. 99% of Gadhaffi's people could support him, but he would still be evil for repressing that 1%. And in this case, the majority of the country does not support him, he is no longer recognized as the Libyan leader, and he has waged a brutal war against his people. That is wrong. Fighting against that is right. You should support at least the rebels, if nothing else, because at least they are fighting for what's right for them and their own country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SaintPeter, I'm awaiting the day you actually own up to reality and at least ACKNOWLEDGE that Gadhaffi is the bad guy, and he's done far worse than NATO. Accidentally killing civilians is not a war crime. Waging war on your own people is.

There is absolutely no excuse for NATO's involvement in the civil war of a sovereign nation let alone the US, specifically, for getting involved in a war without congressional approval. You cannot justify war just because you call it "humanitarian." No matter how right the president thinks he is, fabricating his claims, he cannot enter a war with another nation without congressional approval. Period.

That being said, this is not humanitarian. There are many many nations going through extreme civil wars and have been for decades. Look at Darfur. Why is NATO not in Darfur bombing the living daylights out of the government? The answer is that they have nothing we want and Libya does. This is not about humanitarian aid it's about oil and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference between Darfur and Libya is that the Libyan rebel force asked for help. They want NATO to help them.

Do you really believe what Gaddafi's regime is telling the truth about those civilian deaths? Yes, civilians might have died. But this is a war. In wars, people die. And these civilians aren't entirely "innocent" either. They are human shields. It's very convenient to use human shields and then make accusations that NATO airstrikes killed civilians. If you aren't using human shields, your people wouldn't have died. In actuality, it is Gaddafi's fault that his people are dying. It is not NATO's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the difference between Darfur and Libya is that the Libyan rebel force asked for help. They want NATO to help them.

Darfur (Annan) has asked the US for help. Secondly I don't doubt that information can be misconstrued by the Libyan government, however the rebels themselves were very angry with NATO, specifically the US, continually bombing and killing innocent lives. In addition, this was never declared a war, but rather humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid does not include the killings of civilians via bombing. If this were declared war, the bombings would still not be justified. Lastly, the people, specifically in this video, that have died have been those inside buildings, such as the university that was bombed by NATO. They were doing normal everyday things when NATO moved in and bombed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darfur (Annan) has asked the US for help. Secondly I don't doubt that information can be misconstrued by the Libyan government, however the rebels themselves were very angry with NATO, specifically the US, continually bombing and killing innocent lives. In addition, this was never declared a war, but rather humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid does not include the killings of civilians via bombing. If this were declared war, the bombings would still not be justified. Lastly, the people, specifically in this video, that have died have been those inside buildings, such as the university that was bombed by NATO. They were doing normal everyday things when NATO moved in and bombed them.

Peacekeeping troops have been sent to Darfur. The situation in Darfur is different from Libya. Somehow, I doubt that whoever it is in charge in Darfur constructed bomb-proof shelters under the city to hide himself. You cannot compare Darfur with Libya because the situation is different.

That will depend upon who is interviewed. If ABC News interviews pro-Gaddafi people, that is what you will hear. These pictures is proof that the pro-rebel people are happy with the way Tripoli has been taken. Without NATO help, Tripoli wouldn't have been taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no excuse for NATO's involvement in the civil war of a sovereign nation let alone the US, specifically, for getting involved in a war without congressional approval. You cannot justify war just because you call it "humanitarian." No matter how right the president thinks he is, fabricating his claims, he cannot enter a war with another nation without congressional approval. Period.

Why shouldn't other countries aid anyone in civil wars? You've been saying this for six months now, but throwing out words like "sovereign" and "their own business" honestly don't mean anything (especially considering the fact that the rebels begged for NATO's help. Rhetoric is not an argument. NATO exists for the purpose of maintaining security for member nations and their allies, and therefore the actions taken against Gadhaffi are perfectly acceptable based on NATO's overall mission.

Can I justify war because it's humanitarian? No of course not. But the war had already begun. I certainly can justify intervening in a war that already exists for humanitarian purposes. I honestly have no clue how you, a self-proclaimed Christian, can possibly think it's right to sit back and relax as a madman massacres his people. It really baffles me to the highest degree that you'd prefer that everyone just minds their own business when helpless people are slaughtered.

That being said, this is not humanitarian. There are many many nations going through extreme civil wars and have been for decades. Look at Darfur. Why is NATO not in Darfur bombing the living daylights out of the government? The answer is that they have nothing we want and Libya does. This is not about humanitarian aid it's about oil and money.

NATO isn't in Darfur because the war in Darfur is over. Seems obvious enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why shouldn't other countries aid anyone in civil wars? You've been saying this for six months now, but throwing out words like "sovereign" and "their own business" honestly don't mean anything (especially considering the fact that the rebels begged for NATO's help. Rhetoric is not an argument. NATO exists for the purpose of maintaining security for member nations and their allies, and therefore the actions taken against Gadhaffi are perfectly acceptable based on NATO's overall mission.

The problem is not that countries should or should not "aid" or "help" a group of people in a civil war, the problem is that the US under UN direction without congressional approval with NATO lead a war on another nation without first leading an offensive against us. This is a major problem. You don't go into multiple wars policing the world especially when you do not go through the proper channels. We learned that Bush used 911 to take us into a decade long war under false pretenses which Obama is doing himself; leading us into a war with another nation under the guise of humanitarian aid when it's not humanitarian at all.

Secondly, look at it from this perspective. The US is in a civil war. Government versus radicals. The radicals ask Russia to help dismantle the US Government because of it's unconstitutional actions. Russia gets a group of world powers who see how they can take advantage of the local radicals to help combat a nation they've wanted to destroy so that they can gain from their economic wealth. Russia brings in China and Germany. They start bombing the United States. What would the US government say? Probably the same thing as Gadafi, get out of our country. They're line of reasoning would be "well it's humanitarian. Sure you didn't murder people in the streets, but the radicals are asking for our help."

And are you saying that Libya is a member nation or ally? The only authority that NATO claims to have as a rite of passage is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

Can I justify war because it's humanitarian? No of course not. But the war had already begun. I certainly can justify intervening in a war that already exists for humanitarian purposes. I honestly have no clue how you, a self-proclaimed Christian, can possibly think it's right to sit back and relax as a madman massacres his people. It really baffles me to the highest degree that you'd prefer that everyone just minds their own business when helpless people are slaughtered.

I don't appreciate your insinuation but I'll address it as best I can. I do not believe that it is just for a nation to wage war on it's citizens murdering innocents. It needs to stop. The problem I have is that you assume that the death of Libyan civilians is the reason we're there. It's not. This war was planned years ago (see the link below) and In 2009 Gadafi suggested that he would nationalize his oil which he said to, get this, students at Georgetown University in Washington over videophone. I mean, Gadafi is a terrorist and of all places he's welcomed to speak in Washington. Weird. He said he wouldn't follow OPEC's rules which I believed caused quite a stir with the powers that be. If you look at where we've fought, it's been at every major oil port. So no I don't think it's right under any circumstances to murder innocent civilians, but this isn't our war and we certainly didn't go over there because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is not that countries should or should not "aid" or "help" a group of people in a civil war, the problem is that the US under UN direction without congressional approval with NATO lead a war on another nation without first leading an offensive against us. This is a major problem.

The President has executive power to declare emergency war. We can be in war for 60 days. After that Congress must vote yes to continue any war. On March 1st the Senate AUTHROIZED the military to establish a No-Fly Zone. The United States has not been engaged in Libya since April. NATO is not only made up of member states but has a standing force of it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is not that countries should or should not "aid" or "help" a group of people in a civil war, the problem is that the US under UN direction without congressional approval with NATO lead a war on another nation without first leading an offensive against us. This is a major problem. You don't go into multiple wars policing the world especially when you do not go through the proper channels. We learned that Bush used 911 to take us into a decade long war under false pretenses which Obama is doing himself; leading us into a war with another nation under the guise of humanitarian aid when it's not humanitarian at all.

Saying "it's not humanitarian" still doesn't explain why we have no business intervening. We have plenty of business intervening, ESPECIALLY if you're right about it not being humanitarian. Intervention to protect our interests is the most legitimate intervention there is.

As for the proper channels, well, the War Powers Resolution enabled it and Congress failed to act on their part to end it. They didn't do their job, so oh well!

Secondly, look at it from this perspective. The US is in a civil war. Government versus radicals. The radicals ask Russia to help dismantle the US Government because of it's unconstitutional actions. Russia gets a group of world powers who see how they can take advantage of the local radicals to help combat a nation they've wanted to destroy so that they can gain from their economic wealth. Russia brings in China and Germany. They start bombing the United States. What would the US government say? Probably the same thing as Gadafi, get out of our country. They're line of reasoning would be "well it's humanitarian. Sure you didn't murder people in the streets, but the radicals are asking for our help."

That's a bad comparison, because we're not talking about radicals. Let's make it more similar - the US government started shooting up protests and bombing towns where unrest had taken place. Would you have a problem with another government coming to our aid in that case? I wouldn't.

And are you saying that Libya is a member nation or ally? The only authority that NATO claims to have as a rite of passage is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

No, Libya isn't a member nation or ally. Where'd that come from?

I don't appreciate your insinuation but I'll address it as best I can. I do not believe that it is just for a nation to wage war on it's citizens murdering innocents. It needs to stop. The problem I have is that you assume that the death of Libyan civilians is the reason we're there. It's not. This war was planned years ago (see the link below) and In 2009 Gadafi suggested that he would nationalize his oil which he said to, get this, students at Georgetown University in Washington over videophone. I mean, Gadafi is a terrorist and of all places he's welcomed to speak in Washington. Weird. He said he wouldn't follow OPEC's rules which I believed caused quite a stir with the powers that be. If you look at where we've fought, it's been at every major oil port. So no I don't think it's right under any circumstances to murder innocent civilians, but this isn't our war and we certainly didn't go over there because of this.

This entire section is a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×